The ban would have expanded the current smoking prohibition near public doorways and in parks to other outdoor areas.

Councilors who supported the ban said it was intended to improve public health by reducing exposure to secondhand smoke and litter from discarded cigarette butts. But the majority of councilors either had concerns about the proposed ban harming business at downtown bars or said it represented an example of government overreach.

Councilors in favor of the trial dog ban said the prohibition is one of several things the city is doing to improve downtown safety. Downtown residents and employees have testified about fearing for their safety after encounters with aggressive dogs in the area.

Much of the council’s discussion centered on whether the ordinance was aimed at displacing downtown loiterers, who frequently are accompanied by dogs.

Syrett said the city wouldn’t approve if a local kennel club decided to bring dogs to a downtown corner every Wednesday for six hours and “have the kind of conflicts that we’re seeing now.”

“No one is being asked to give up their dog,” said Syrett, who noted that her spouse has walked their dog downtown. “We would just be asking that they don’t bring it to this particular area.”

Councilor Chris Pryor said he’s heard of people and other animals attacked by dogs downtown. He noted that the ordinance is modeled after a successful dog ban in effect for the East 13th Avenue commercial strip next to the University of Oregon.

“I’m not using dogs as a way to get rid of people I don’t like downtown,” he said. “That’s not my goal here.”

But the two dissenting councilors argued that was precisely the goal.

“It does exclude homeless people because they have nowhere to leave their dog,” Semple said. “They can’t abandon it; it’s companionship, protection and warmth.”

Taylor revisited the incident where a dog attacked a dog owned by a city library employee. The employee’s dog was killed, and the employee was injured in the attack.

Taylor said it was terrible that a dog got killed during the incident but added, “We don’t ban a whole class (of people) just because something bad happens,” she said.

The downtown core is roughly bordered by Lincoln Street to the west, Eighth Avenue to the north, Pearl Street to the east and 11th Avenue to the south.

Someone who violates the ordinance, once it takes effect, could be fined up to $250.

In a late change, the approved ordinance exempts the public area in front of the Dining Room, which is run by Food for Lane County on West Eighth Avenue and provides free meals during the week.

Syrett, who requested the exemption, said the center provides one of the few social services downtown. She didn’t want a ban on dogs preventing homeless people from using the dining room.

But Councilor Mike Clark said the exemption didn’t make sense if the intent of the ordinance was to separate dogs from people in a small, dense area for safety reasons.

“There’s a whole bunch of folks all clustered there (in front of the dining room), and if you have several of them with dogs, then it’s inherently dangerous,” he said.

The dog ban would not apply to residents who live and work in the area. It also wouldn’t apply to service dogs, police dogs and dogs that remain in motor vehicles.

The ordinance has a broad definition of dog owner that includes the licensed owner as well as anyone who “harbors a dog or who has it in their care, possession, custody or control or who knowingly permits a dog to remain on any premises occupied by the person.”

The ordinance defines a service dog as a canine that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability. The definition under the proposed ordinance does not extend to dogs that deter crime by their presence or offer emotional support, comfort or companionship.